The problem is more the system. As long as they don't get rid of the winner-takes-it-all system and add options for coalitions, things are not really going to change, as any additional party will only take votes from either the Democrats or the Republicans. Ironically, the German parliament election exemplify that very well, being a combined election. In the normal vote (i.e. the popular vote), small parties have been gaining votes for the last 30 years, and the two large parties, which used to have 90% together in the 70s, are now down to 55% combined. However, in the county vote, with its winner-takes-it-all system, they still gain nearly every single county, and usually ~70-80% of the votes. This is simply because there is no point in voting for another party, because any other party doesn't have the slightest chance of winning them.mangaluva wrote: I wonder if a spending cap on election campaigns would help any. Not that it's always the most accurate source of information, but today's Metro had some truly obscene figures listed for Romney and Obama's campaign spending.
(I'm not going to explain how exactly the system works; it's awfully complicated, but basically the popular vote determines the percentages, and the county vote determines the candidates. The fact that the current system has been ruled unconstitutional doesn't exactly help either.)
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
or 
are attached, that paragraph may not be 100% serious. Seriously.
